San Bernardino District Attorney Michael Ramos has refused to prosecute this case?

Many of Mr. Ramo’s constituents have lost their life savings! Ramos’s was put on notice in 2010 from several APFC Creditors who sent certified formal complaints to his office!

Mr. Ramos has a SWORN DUTY to prosecute criminals in his jurisdiction Larry Polhill of APFC has committed MULTIPLE egregious felonious crimes in Ramos’s jurisdiction but yet Ramos refuses to do anything about it?

WHY?

The following is the Mission Statement for District Attorney Ramos’s Office

“It is the mission of the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to represent the interests of the people in the criminal justice system, as mandated by California State law. The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office serves the residents of San Bernardino County by: seeking the truth, protecting the innocent; holding the guilty accountable; preserving the dignity of victims and their families; and, ensuring that justice is done while always maintaining the highest ethical standards.”

Two Diamond Bar women get three years for PTA ponzi scheme – SGVTribune.com

Contrary to what Larry Polhill stated in his advertisements to solicit new unsuspecting investors, Larry R. Polhill did not graduate from college and as such does not have any formal business education or training.

83% of APFC’s investments that were shown as Company assets were written off as bad debts!!

AFPC’s own income statements illustrate that the company had net losses! These losses incurred by APFC were being funded by the new notes being issued to investors in APFC, instead of the notes being used to purchase investments as promised by Polhill!

Larry Polhill on the surface is a likeable character but underneath his facade lies a pathological liar and criminal who belongs behind bars with Bernie Madoff and the rest of the Ponzi Czars who have bilked innocent victims out of their hard earned monies!!!

Larry R. Polhill and Bradley J. Crandall have committed serious felonious crimes against their investors and siphoned off millions of dollars into their own personal LLC’S. The names of these LLCs are Stillwater and Dakota Farms.

This was done on purpose to reduce the ownership of Capital Foods by APFC from approximately 80% to 26% prior to

APFC’S PLANNED FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY!

Polhill illegally backdated the operating agreement with Capital Foods pre-petition which is also FRAUD. There is a mountain of evidence here that proves

PONZI SCHEME!!!

This was all planned in advance prior to filing bankruptcy and has nothing to do with A “recessionary downturn in the economy” which is contrary to Pohlill’s fallacious excuses for APFC’s demise!

Chapter 11 Trustee Barclay in his investigation found APFC to be a Ponzi Scheme, so did the UCC’s own accountant, the SEC and the US Trustee!

This website will post evidence that proves APFC is a Ponzi Scheme so that Larry R. Polhill, Bradley J.Crandall, Marylyn Donnegan, Todd L. Dreyer, UCC Chairman Tom Davis and his UCC co-conspirators can be brought to justice AND GO TO JAIL!

TODD DRYER (pictured above) SOLD ILLEGAL & BOGUS INVESTMENTS FOR APFC

IN COURT FILINGS ON JULY 16, 2013TrusteeMelech calls APFC ” MASSIVE PONZI SCHEMEORCHESTRATED BY DEFENDANT POLHILL THAT DROVE APFC DEEP INTO INSURMOUNTABLE DEBT AND RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF OVER $140 MILLION.”

“Based on a preliminary investigation of certain pre-bankruptcy transactions and conduct involving the debtor, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may file a civil action against the debtor in an appropriate forum for possible violations of federal securities laws. Such an action may result in a judgment against the debtor for an unknown amount of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest, as well as an unknown amount of penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), Section 21 (d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), and Section 209(e) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e). Accordingly, the SEC files this protective Proof of Claim to preserve any relief to which it may be entitled should such a judgment be obtained against the debtor.”

“The disclosure statement contains no analysis of the claims which could be asserted against Mr. Polhill, other than for a single instance of misappropriation of a corporate opportunity, and fails to analyze this from the perspective of pursing the perpetrator and beneficiaries of a Ponzi scheme. There is no discussion as to whether persons who received distributions over and above their capital invested or principal loaned could be required to return funds to the estate for the benefit of creditors who were not so favored. There is no discussion in a typical Ponzi case as to whether the claims of insiders and affiliated entities (who are not adequately identified, and whose distributions under the plan are not spelled out) could be subordinated to the claims of other creditors.”

“The comparison to other Ponzi cases fails to disclose that in one the Midland case presided over by the bankruptcy trustee, in addition to the distribution from the bankruptcy, creditors received substantial additional distributions from a class action lawsuit which built upon the evidence gathered by the bankruptcy trustee. “

“In that action, the bankruptcy estate took the lead and bore the investigative expenses, and significant recoveries were achieved for creditor/investors from the related class action. A Ponzi scheme recovery in the instant case has substantially better opportunities for recovery, because the primary target would be Mr. Polhill, the perpetrator of the scheme, and his related and affiliated entities, all of which have significant assets.”

“Indeed, the plan is premised on Mr. Polhill having significant assets. The plan and the settlement agreement are, as previously noted, inconsistent as to the definition of Released Parties. The release contained in the plan, which commences at page 28 of the proposed plan, appears designed to grant releases for acts undertaken during the administration of the estate.”

“The settlement agreement, by contrast, is designed to release certain persons from arguably wrongful acts committed both pre and post-petition. The two settlements should not be in conflict and contradictory, as they are here.”

The creditors in this case paid for accountant Greene’s forensic financial analysis of APFC

UCC CHAIRMAN TOM Davis had a FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CREDITORS TO INFORM THEM OF GREENE’S FINDINGS IN THIS CASE!

DAVIS CHOSE TO PROTECT HIS CO-CONSPIRATOR LARRY POLHILL AND COMMITTED BANKRUPTCY FRAUD, COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY IN THE PROCESS!

why is that? What was Davis trying to hide?

UCC Chairman Tom Davis

Trustee Barclay was puzzled on this and wrote in his declaration to the court

” In what can only be described as a bizarre moment in this case, the OCC filed written opposition to my Rule 2004 application. The OCC argued that the report was subject to the attorney-client privilege and therefore I was not entitled to view it or to examine Mr. Greene. The OCC further argued that since I was a CPA myself, I should just conduct my own investigation and not seek to rely on or be aided by the investigative work already done by the OCC or its expert in this case.Suffice to say that the OCC’s actions in this regard remain quite puzzling.”

LARRY POLHILL AND BRAD CRANDALL HAD INVESTORS UNKNOWINGLY SIGN ILLEGAL SECURITIES BY ISSUING INVESTORS BOGUS PROMISORRY NOTES. APFC INVESTORS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR INVESTMENTS WERE SECURED AND COLLATERALIZEDWITH ASSETS LISTED ON THE NOTES. THIS IS NOT THE CASE!

POHILL’S ATTORNEY KARAAN THOMAS REFERRED TO THESE PROMISSORY NOTES AS “GOBBLEDYGOOK” IN JUDGE MARKELL’S COURTROOM. THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE POLHILL HAS FOR DEFENDING HIS NUMEROUS SECURITIES VIOLATIONS?

Contrary to what Larry Polhill stated in his advertisements to solicate new unsuspecting investors POLHILL , HAS NO FORMAL BUSINESS EDUCATION OR COLLEGE TRAINING

Pohill did not to perform adequate “due diligence” and understand all of the industries and risks associated with the companies APFC acquired as evidenced by the huge losses APFC incurred.

over 80% of APFC’s Investments Were Written off as BAD DEBTS prior to filing for bankfuptcy!

Were some of these BAD DEBTS written off to hide assets?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes inevitably collapse, most often when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask for their funds to be returned.

What causes intelligent people to lose fortunes in Ponzi schemes?

MISGUIDED TRUST

If a crook is not seen as a crook, but as authoritative and honest, people will tend to trust him. Larry Polhill appeared to be honest and his investors trusted him! It didn’t matter that he is dishonest and a sociopath!; all that matters is how Polhill appeared to others.

Larry R. Polhill and Bradley J. Crandall have committed serious felonious crimes against their investors and siphoned off millions of dollars into their own personal LLC’S. The names of these LLCs are Stillwater and Dakota Farms. This was done on purpose to reduce the ownership of Capital Foods by APFC from approximately 80% to 26% prior to APFC’S PLANNED BANKRUPTCY!

Barclay states “I am concerned that the OCC in this case has been tainted by the involvement of members who have ongoing, continued business relations with Mr. Polhill.

The UCC had a Fiduciary Duty to represent the “unsecured creditor class to the best of their ability” This clearly did not happen under Chairman Davis direction and guidance!!!!!

WHY DID THIS NOT HAPPEN?

The reason why it did not happen is that the majority of the UCC WAS CORRUPT AND IN COLLUSION WITH LARRY POLHILL TO GET A PLAN THROUGH THAT WAS NOT VIABLE because the vast majority of UCC members have “SECURED INTERESTS” in APFC and were named “insiders” by Trustee Barclay AND SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPOINTED ON THE UCC. THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

UCC Chairman Davis

UCC CHAIRMAN TOM DAVIS CONSPIRED AND COLLUDED WITH POLHILL TO COMMIT BANKRUPTCY FRAUD, TAX FRAUD AND COULD NOT BE BOTHERED WITH THE SEC AND THEIR INVESTIGATION OF NUMEROUS SECURITIES VIOLATONS AGAINST POLHILL & APFC!

WHY DID DAVIS EXCLUDE ONE OF HIS COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM NEGOTIATIONS WITH POLHILL?

WHAT WAS DAVIS TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE UNSECURED CREDITORS?

The US Trustee, SEC and Appointed Trustee all objected to the UCC’s Rep-organization plan! Three times!!!!!

” my efforts to investigate the financial affairs surrounding the Debtor’s assets and transactions with its creditors and others has beenmet with resistance on multiple fronts From the beginning of my tenure as Trustee, I attempted to obtain access to the report prepared by the OCC’s forensic accountant, Craig L. Greene, who was appointed by order of this Court. After my request to the OCC to voluntarily produce the report and grant access to Mr. Greene was denied, I filed an application under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 for production of the report and examination of Mr. Greene. In what can only be described as a bizarre moment in this case, the OCC filed written opposition to my Rule 2004 application.The OCC argued that the report was subject to the attorney-client privilege and therefore I was not entitled to view it or to examine Mr. Greene. The OCC further argued that since I was a CPA myself, I should just conduct my own investigation and not seek to rely on or be aided by the investigative work already done by the OCC or its expert in this case.Suffice to say that the OCC’s actions in this regard remain quite puzzling.”

Why did the UCC act as an adversary towards Trustee Barclay?

Privacy

The owner of this blog does not share personal information with third-parties nor does the owner store information is collected about your visit for use other than to analyze content performance through the use of cookies, which you can turn off at anytime by modifying your Internet browser’s settings. The owner is not responsible for the republishing of the content found on this blog on other Web sites or media without permission.

Blog Comments

The owner of this blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice due to;

1. Comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam
2. Comments including profanity
3. Comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive
4. Comments that attack a person individually

Terms and Conditions

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

The owner of this blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice due to;

1. Comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam
2. Comments including profanity
3. Comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive
4. Comments that attack a person individually

Terms and Conditions

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.